In late November 2024, the popular Canadian rapper Drake, through his company Frozen Moments, LLC, filed Verified Petitions in New York and Texas state courts, naming iHeartMedia, Spotify, and Universal Music Group (UMG).
These filings follow a series of “diss tracks” exchanged between Drake and west coast rapper Kendrick Lamar in the summer of 2024. The last diss track released by Lamar this summer, titled “Not Like Us,” was a smash hit and quickly became one of the most listened-to songs of the year. The beef touched on serious allegations; in an earlier track, Drake accused Lamar of infidelity and domestic abuse. On “Not Like Us,” Lamar alleged that Drake and his acquaintances are sexual predators.
Drake has now taken the conflict to court with his Texas and New York petitions. Fans of both artists have reacted strongly to Drake’s “lawsuits” against UMG, but many of these reactions have mischaracterized the filings. So, what do these filings actually say, and what do they mean for Drake, Lamar, and their shared music rightsholder UMG?
What is a “Verified Petition”?
A verified petition is a formal request made to a court. The person filing is called a “Petitioner” (here, Drake’s company). The Petitioner swears under oath that the facts stated in the petition are true—this is the “verified” component. A petition names “Respondents,” like UMG here, and usually asks for something specific from the court or from those Respondents, like an order or special permission to do something.
A verified petition is not a “lawsuit” in the typical sense. Usually, a lawsuit is started by someone filing a complaint. A complaint is a statement, often made by a “Plaintiff,” who alleges certain facts and argues that she is entitled to compensation or other legal action based on how the facts fit recognized legal claims. Complaints are primarily filed against “Defendants.”
What Does Drake Want From UMG, Spotify, and iHeartMedia?
Drake’s New York petition, which names UMG and Spotify, alleges that UMG “launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves with ‘Not Like Us,’ in order to make [the] song go viral, including by using ‘bots’ and pay-to-play agreements.” The petition has two primary requests. First, it asks the court to grant limited, “pre-lawsuit disclosure,” which would require UMG and Spotify to hand over certain documents and communications relevant to Drake’s claims. Second, it asks the court to require that UMG and Spotify preserve certain evidence.
In the Texas petition, naming UMG and iHeartMedia, Drake alleges that UMG, which distributes both his and Lamar’s music, approved the release of “Not Like Us” despite knowing that it defamed Drake. The petition suggests that UMG should have either refused to distribute the song or insisted that lyrics be changed. The Texas petition also claims that UMG artificially inflated the popularity of “Not Like Us.” It requests permission to take depositions of corporate representatives from UMG and iHeartMedia. In a deposition, a witness gives formal testimony outside of a court. Here, Drake expects that the depositions would inform his claims in a future lawsuit.
What is “Payola”?
The Communications Act of 1934 and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules require radio stations to disclose when they are paid to play a song. “Payola” is the illegal practice of paying a radio station or other platform to promote a song without disclosing the payment to the audience.
In his New York petition, Drake alleges that UMG and Spotify engaged in illegal payola. Specifically, he alleges that UMG charged Spotify a lower licensing fee than usual for “Not Like Us” in exchange for Spotify recommending the song more frequently and to more listeners. Drake also alleges that UMG engaged in similar practices with other streaming platforms, all of which led to a saturation of the music market with “Not Like Us,” at Drake’s expense.
Did Drake Sue Lamar for Defamation?
No, Drake did not sue for defamation. In his Texas petition, Drake claims that he has enough evidence to move forward with a defamation claim, but he has not initiated a claim yet. The petition asks for permission to receive more evidence from UMG and the other parties.
What’s Next?
UMG has publicly responded to the petitions by stating that “[t]he suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue.” The company suggested that the allegations were contrived and absurd. As of the publication of this article, none of the Respondents have filed formal responses to the allegations in court.
UMG will likely oppose the petitions by arguing they do not meet the legal standard for pre-action disclosures. In New York, courts have held that pre-action disclosures are not permissible as a “fishing expedition” to determine whether the Petitioner has a claim. New York courts grant pre-action disclosure if it would allow the Petitioner to identify facts not already known to the Petitioner for use in a complaint. Drake’s petitions identify several facts, which he personally verifies as true. The courts could find that Drake already has enough information to file a claim, making his requests unnecessary.
Contributions to this blog by Myles Ganther.
